You know, that brought me to an interesting thought a few years ago. How can people complain about "playing God" by bringing these animals back to life, if we were playing God by killing them in the first place?

Funny thing is, she thinks rendering animals extinct is, while somewhat regrettable, infinitely less awful than bringing them back once we've done it. Her reasoning is that while animals and plants go extinct all the time and humans aren't always to blame, none of them naturally return once they've been exterminated.
Strangely, she doesn't have a problem with "unnatural" things when it comes to medicine. Obviously, things like her 90+ year old father getting a pacemaker are perfectly natural, since animals in the wild do that all the time.

She also feels that making restitution or apology to someone you've wronged is far, far worse than doing someone wrong in the first place, since the "moral" choice is not to cause harm at all, and trying to make restitution is merely attempting to avoid responsibility. She uses the following analogy to explain it:

When I snarkily commented that, obviously, the only moral and ethical choice one could make here would be to shrug indifferently and walk away without a backwards glance, she told me that, yes, it was, since if you truly regretted it you'd not have done it to begin with. The lady doesn't get snark or sarcasm, unless it's very, very obvious. Then she treats it like it's an insult.

She's also a Randian Objectivist who thinks that Obama is an America-hating Muslim who's carrying out a 40 year old master plan by Alinsky and Malcomn X to destroy America (that he eats pork and drinks beer is definitive proof of this--seriously), and wants social security and medicaid eliminated--just so long as she can continue to collect hers, because she has several chronic health issues and needs them both to live. The mental disconnect is absolutely staggering.